Ghet, you speak of framing things without moral retreating, what you need to do is try to argue your points while holding your emotions and passion at bay. Otherwise, you make boneheaded mistakes like confusing "sex" with "gender". That little mistake caused two pages of confusion on your part.

As for who gains from a gay bomb? Homophobes? Nah, just kidding. The federal government would likely be the logical answer since the Pentagon was at the root of it.

Would Gays benefit? Likely, no. I don't think the gay populus would like their identity used as a tool of war. I don't think they would want what they would perceive to be artificially gay people. Let's take what I am: Christian. I was not too pleased in the late nineties when the threat of Y2k Armageddon created an army of pseudo-Christians. That literally pissed me off. I as a patriot was also visibly upset ON HERE six years ago when a ton of you became "patriotic" artificially after 9/11. Would it give gays more people to f*ck? Yes, but I don't think there's a shortage of that as is.

Moreover, the idea that gayness is such a horrible thing that it is in fact a plausible weapon in times of war is in fact counter to the "acceptance" goal of the so-called "gay agenda". If they drop a bomb on the head offices in Century City, Downtown LA and Manhattan hence making all of the media gay, that would be different. That would make gayness more acceptible in the media, but not when they would use a gay bomb to make people more succeptible to killing.

So basically, the idea of this bomb would not help gays.

As for it being eventual genocide: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Why? Because it is human nature to strive for immortality. Humans, unlike animals, have the gift of advanced logic and thought (or at least some of us do...) Because of this, it need not be an autonomous knee jerk reaction for us to procreate. In other words, if t he entire world went gay, babies would still be born. Why? Gays want kids. They'd find away to do it, even if not done "the icky way".

Also, if everyone on the earth were to become "gay", their offspring likely would not. A bomb would have to be dropped every few years; a "heteroexterminator" service if you will. This, by the way, is also assuming that it is the collective agenda of homosexuals nationally and/or worldwide to want more gays. Such is not the case. A gay person may see a straight person they like, and they wish that s/he could turn gay, but there is no logic to wanting there to be more gays. I don't sit around and wish there were more straights or more Christians or more Blacks. What I wish for and pray for is more acceptance. More acceptance for blacks being black without racism, more acceptance of Christians without having to hear haters try and force an ideology down my throat that God or Christ isn't real and religion is for the "weak minded"; acceptance in the artistic community for rap and b-boying as legitimate forms of artistry and not just some fad. I don't necessarily want MORE of any of these things, and in the respect of Christianity, the only reason anyone ever "witnesses" and spreads the word of God is because for us, it is scripturally mandated to do so; it is not in our nature to try to gain Christians like lawyers bill hours.

So no, sex and gender is not the same thing, nor is pointing this out "splitting hairs" by any stretch of the imagination (though I did not learn this until my second to last year of schooling, so I get why ghet's confused; it's not common knowledge).

And no, it is in fact AGAINST the alleged "gay agenda" to use their homosexuality as a weapon because it fortifies the idea that homosexuality is socially and morally unacceptible even to the point of it being used in war.

And no, even total homosexuality of a populus does not mean eventual genocide or death because humans will always find a way to continue their existence, be it artificial insemination or test tube babies or cloning or some hybrid thereof, and this will stem out of an overwhelming automatic urge towards survival.